Rawls' Maximin Principle

Political philosophy aims to reflect the normative and conceptual dimensions of political life. American philosopher John Rawls is widely recognized as one of the leading political philosophers of the twentieth century. His A Theory of Justice (1971) is one of the primary texts in political philosophy and proposes two principles of justice. The first, the liberty principle, defines basic liberties and the second, the difference principle, regulates disparity within rights, powers, and privileges through what is known as a maximin strategy . The difference principle and underlying maximin strategy, as any theory, has several credible components as well as some that cause for criticism.

Rawls argues that the most reasonable principles of justice are those everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position. These principles determine a society's basic structure; political constitution, economy, and property rules. Rawls takes a fair agreement situation to be one where everyone is impartially situated as equals. In this so-called "original position" everyone is equally situated by a hypothetical "veil of ignorance". This veil requires individuals to set aside their knowledge of their particular differences, including knowledge of their talents, wealth, social position, and religious views. People in the original position are rational; they desire a set of primary goods and they know and understand general laws and principles that govern a society . Rawls asserts that in the hypothetical original position everyone would unanimously accept justice as fairness. This conception of justice consists mainly of two principles, the second of which is most imperative and will be discussed in great detail.

Rawls's second principle of justice, the difference principle, defines the limits of inequalities in wealth, income, powers, and positions that may exist in a just society. It...

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

...The difference principle is a very fair and effective way to ensure justice in society. However, in some cases and when taken to certain extremes, it does not hold up as a principle of justice. This essay will first define important terms like difference principle, original position and veil of ignorance. The example of Sidney Crosby will be examined to see how the difference principle holds up against some reasonable and logical arguments. Then the difference principle will be exposed to some hypothetical arguments and critiques.
The difference principle is the assertion that inequality can only be tolerated if the worst off person in society benefits from that inequality. This is referring to inequality of wealth or goods that develops in all societies. There are a couple of justifications for this claim. The first of which involves what Rawls calls original position and the veil of ignorance. The original position is the hypothetical position that all people in the society are born into. There is no inequality of anything at the original position. Ones parents aren’t determined, ones place of birth is not known, and ones race, intelligence and natural physical ability are all undetermined. In this original position, one sits behind the veil of ignorance that, when lifted, will show what person one actually is. Behind the veil of ignorance, absolutely nothing...

...is formed through a theoretical agreement between a group of people about their moral and political obligations. This concept has been used by theorists such as Mill and Rousseau, to explain why the law is justified in its right to constrain the behaviour of individuals and organisations in society. Later in the twentieth century, John Rawls took a novel stance on the concept of the social contract, in which principles of justice were defined for an ‘ideal society’. As such, these principles may offer good moral reasons to comply willingly with the law. However, more recently there have been criticisms by feminists that the social contract does not paint a complete picture of our moral and political lives and instead has, in some ways, assisted in giving more power over certain classes of people (Friend, 2006). In this essay I will evaluate the original notions of the social contract in order to demonstrate how the social contract regulates behaviour and has also, in its conceptualisation, subjugated some aspects of society through its unequal representation. I will then explore John Rawls’ ‘Principle’s of Justice’ and discuss whether, if Rawls hypothetical situation could be implemented, it would provide good moral reason to comply with the law.
The development of the social contract arose out of a ‘state of nature’ in which the need for an arrangement of societal order evolved when humanity faced...

...Distributive Justice
Part I – Introduction
John Rawls’ Theory of Justice is based on the idea of distributive justice, that is, how justice should be distributed to each individual within a society. Rawls’ theory contrasts with the theory of utilitarianism, because it values the welfare of each individual over the ‘greater good’, and does not believe that one person should sacrifice their own needs or desires in order to benefit a larger number of people. This has led Rawls to develop the idea of the ‘Original Position,’ a hypothetical social contract, which Rawls believes would lead to an ideal society of ‘justice as fairness.’ (Rawls, A Liberal Theory of Justice, pp 577, para 1.) Throughout this essay, I will outline Rawls’ theory of the Original Position, and the main two principles of justice that make up his theory. I will discuss two common objections against this theory, and possible responses that Rawls would have to these objections.
Part II – Original Position defined
The Original Position is Rawls’ conception of justice, which would set up rules that an ideal society would abide by in order for justice to be fairly distributed amongst each member of the society. In order for fair and equal opportunities to be allowed to each individual, Rawls believes that a society must first start out with each member in an...

...﻿Is the principle of fairness a sound moral principle?
Reflection on John Rawls’ theory.
The theory of justice as fairness was one of the most important elements of John Rawls’s philosophy, the one frequently discussed and significant for the twentieth-century political philosophy. To answer the question stated in the topic I would like to divide my dissertation into two major consecutive parts. First, I will examine what the principle of fairness implies and what are, in accordance to Rawls, the prerequisites to realize it. Then I would try to examine what the term ‘sound moral principle’ means, and see if the principle of fairness meets the description of a ‘moral principle’.
John Rawls’s theory of justice was an answer to the twentieth-century liberal philosophy. Criticising the liberal approach Rawls decided to reconstruct the idea of social contract1 and use it as a starting point for studying the concept of justice. He did not aim to propose the best political system possible. He rather asked about the rules, the basis for the human activities which could guarantee the existence of justice. Therefore, he developed the principle of fairness. Its major aim was to constitute the necessary conditions for providing ‘an acceptable philosophical and moral basis for democratic institutions’2 and in this way to enable the...

...Rawls’ Difference PrincipleRawls believed in the ideal of perfect equality. This meant, to him, that everyone should have equal opportunity and receive the same treatment. To Rawls, there was only one reason why anyone should be treated differently to any other person – to help the worst off members of society. He called this reason the difference principle, and in conjunction with his “Justice as Fairness” ideal it formed the basis of his claims about distributive justice.
Rawls’ natural lottery was the biological limitations that one is born with. For example, some people are simply not capable of the intelligence and skill required to be a doctor. Rawls suggests a counter to this natural phenom, asserting that the difference principle is needed to counter the effects of the natural lottery (“The Law Of Peoples” p.114, On Distributive Justice Among People). People who are biologically less able than others would be provided for to the same level as others, but it would take more of society’s resources, so they would need a larger amount than the average person. This would create an inequality in terms of natural assets, but it would create equality in social order. The person who was disadvantaged would be brought to the same level as everyone else because of the excess money given to them.
The difference principle makes sense in a cut...

...Justice as Fairness
Rawls first begins with discussing how we are lead to the original position. The original position is a hypothetical argument that considers a society where people do not decide what is right or wrong based on a higher power or emotion, but rather on common sense. These ideas establish justice or fairness simply based on the community’s beliefs that they create. However, these agreements cannot be made without the “veil of ignorance.” This means that all instances that would create a distortion of views must be ruled out. Thus, the people discussing what the rules will be cannot have any information about the other individual, or the society’s position. The hypothetical argument is contingent on all things being fair and equal, which means that all people involved in crating the beliefs must be free of any preconceived ideas. Another part of the equality of this situation is that every member of a society, including the minority, must be treated fairly. Rawls stated that every citizen had basic liberties and human rights that must be protected. He believed that societies need to protect the least advantaged citizen in order to be successful. We determine which citizens are least advantaged based on if they possess primary goods. Primary goods are what is needed to be a functioning and contributing member of society. These things are not necessarily monetary, but rather on psychological capabilities,...

...Which is the most appealing Nozick’s entitlement theory or Rawls theory of distributive justice?
The defence of liberal ideologies emerged not long after the Second World War, prior to this there had been little faith in liberal values during the 1920’s and 1930’s, however after the war there appeared to be a renewed defence for liberal thinking ranging across a variety of ideological theories. To the present day these liberal perspectives continue to influence political thinking with regards to rights, equality and freedom. This rapid revival of liberal ideologies highlights the diverse and contradictory parts associated with liberal ideas and so we are left with two very influential theorists in liberal political philosophy yet with very conflicting theories. These theorists are famously known as Robert Nozick and John Rawls.
There are a number of diverse views on economic or distributive justice, some claim that goods should be distributed equally or shared based on a principle of need that is to say who needs these goods more. Other views claim goods should be distributed according to labour, merit, and effort which determine who is entitled to them. John Rawls argues that the economy should be designed in such a way that those ‘worse off’ in society should benefit as much as possible, so inequalities would exist but everyone in society benefits from this. Rawl’s therefore approves of more state involvement...

...A contemporary philosopher, John Rawls (1921-2002), is noted for his contributions to political and moral philosophy. In particular, Rawls' discussion about justice introduced five important concepts into discourse, including: the two principles of justice, the “original position” and “veil of ignorance,” reflective equilibrium, overlapping consensus, and public reason. What is interesting about these five contributions is how Rawls’ speculative thought has been used by scholars across disciplinary lines, influencing such diverse academic disciplines as economics, law, political science, sociology, and theology.
A theory of justice...
Rawls’ most famous work, A Theory of Justice (1971), provides an introduction to this body of thought as well as some of its implications for ethics. Like many philosophers before him, Rawls focused upon justice because of its substantive importance for organizing and governing society.
The problem, however, involves defining what that term means theoretically (i.e., speculatively about organizing and governing society) and practically (i.e., the consequences for people and their lives).
Generally, speaking, justice can be defined in one of two ways. One definition emphasizes an individual’s merit or lack of it. According to this definition, each individual must be treated exactly as one deserves. This "merit theory" of justice, reflecting...